Deadline Set for Puttur ‘Love–Sex–Betrayal’ Case; Naming Ceremony Scheduled if Marriage Fails to Occur by January 31st
Mangaluru: A firm deadline has been established in the ongoing ‘love–sex–betrayal’ case originating in Puttur, with significant consequences outlined should reconciliation efforts fail. Pratibha Kulai, a Member of the Backward Classes Commission, announced at a press conference held at the Mangaluru Press Club that a naming ceremony for the child involved will proceed on February 7th if a marriage between the concerned parties does not take place by January 31st. Following the naming ceremony, Ms. Kulai stated that there would be no further consideration of a compromise.
Ms. Kulai explained that the naming ceremony was initially scheduled for January 24th in Kalladka. However, Namita, the child’s grandmother, received communication from Madhu Acharya, an office-bearer of the Udupi unit of the Acharya community. Mr. Acharya reportedly conveyed that Krishna J. Rao’s family had consented to the marriage and requested additional time, also asking for a postponement of the cradle ceremony. Out of respect for this request, the date was subsequently changed. Ms. Kulai emphasized that the family had previously been misled for a period of six months and would not allow a similar situation to recur.
Allegations have surfaced regarding conditions imposed by the boy’s family, specifically a demand that only Namita and her daughter attend any reconciliation meetings. The girl’s family has reportedly rejected this condition, citing concerns for their safety. Ms. Kulai affirmed that neither she nor Nanjundi would participate in meetings under such conditions, proposing instead that any reconciliation discussions be held at the Puttur Police Station or before the Superintendent of Police in Mangaluru.
Further accusations were leveled, with Ms. Kulai alleging that the Puttur MLA had indicated the unwillingness of Krishna J. Rao’s family to proceed with the marriage. Given the ongoing court proceedings related to the case, Ms. Kulai expressed suspicion that attempts were being made to manipulate events to evade legal consequences. She further claimed that prior demands included handing over the child to an ashram, withdrawing the legal case, and pursuing a divorce even if a marriage were to take place.
Ms. Kulai insisted that a legally binding marriage, whether conducted online or through any other valid means, is necessary to bring closure to the matter and serve as atonement for the actions of both individuals involved. She stated that if the couple finds it impossible to cohabitate after the marriage, they retain the option to seek a legal divorce. She also noted that Namita’s absence from certain meetings was a result of imposed conditions.
In closing, Ms. Kulai reiterated the ultimatum: should the marriage not be solemnized by January 31st, all reconciliation efforts will cease. The child’s naming ceremony will proceed in a grand fashion on February 7th, and the legal battle will continue unabated.